Press Release

Adv W.H. Heath SC
Heath Executive Consultants
Creators of a Risk-Free Environment

Undated, but circa 2005-06-08

I have seen many recent newspaper reports, pronouncing that the justice system has been vindicated by the triple conviction of Shabir (sic) Shaik last week. This may be true if the trial is seen in isolation: Judge Hillary (sic) Squires can be commended for the flawless manner in which he presided over a very difficult trial.

However, it is my considered opinion that the Shaik prosecution has opened the door for probably the grossest political foul play in an arena where politics cannot be allowed. The National Prosecuting Authority has still to explain their astounding decision not to prosecute deputy president Zuma when prima facie evidence seemingly proved his guilt. There is no reasonable legal principle or precedent in South Africa, which could explain the phenomenon that Bulelani Ngcuka unleashed together with his former crony Penual (sic) Maduna when they convicted Zuma in the popular media before Shaik was even arraigned.

So, in the absence of a legal principle or precedent, I am inextricably drawn to the inference that the former National Director of Public Prosecutions, appointed as a politician, had a political motive for brutally attempting to destroy Zuma's reputation and stamping on his constitutional rights to defend himself against charges in court.

Statements have also been made that the inference can be drawn that Zuma is guilty of corruption by association with Shaik. The Honourable Justice Squires made several references to Zuma's relationship with Shaik and he made certain statements of condemnation of this relationship. Judge Squires did not err in his appraisal of the relationship in the relevant references in his judgement, however, it must be read in the context of the evidence he had been presented with.

Corruption cannot be committed in isolation. One person cannot be charged singularly for a crime, which takes at least two to commit. Two scenarios have emanated from Ngucka's (sic) infamous decision:

If Zuma is not prosecuted and he is guilty, the interests of South Africa have not been served. It could be almost impossible to secure a conviction against Zuma through a "second-take" of Shaik's trial.

If Zuma is innocent and he is not prosecuted, his reputation will remain unjustly tarnished without the possibility of defending himself, again with Ngcuka having failed in his duties to serve the best interests of South Africa.

Maybe even more importantly, had Zuma and Shaik been tried together, evidence could have surfaced to refute or rebut evidence that led to Shaik's conviction, and Zuma and Shaik could both have been acquitted. So in a sense, Shaik's rights were fundamentally undermined in that respect and the fairness of the prosecution, and I stress not the verdict of Judge Squires, could be questioned.

The evidence which was tendered at Shaik's trial was available to Ngcuka when he arrived at his infamous decision not to prosecute Zuma, "even with prima facie evidence". Is this decision and the reasons for arriving at the conclusion not to prosecute Zuma going to change now?

I have always been a staunch supporter of a transparent investigation into the arms deal. Unfortunately, what we are seeing is window-dressing and a blatant attempt to use the Arms Deal fiasco as the ideal springboard for political agendas and hidden motives.

In this Cosato and the ANC Youth League can play a vital role in demanding transparency, provided that their involvement reflects the dignity and aspirations of what they are trying to achieve.

It is however clear for all to see that the underlying motivation behind these "Arms Deal Trials", is a power play for the leadership of the ANC. It will be interesting to see whether this apparent abuse of justice will lead to a split in the ANC - maybe such a split is needed to at last ventilate the corruptors of the Arms Deal from the dark shadowy corners.

With acknowledgement to Adv W.H. Heath SC.